UNITARIAN CHRISTIANITY

By William Ellery Channing

Delivered at the Ordination of Rev. Jared Sparks in The First Independent
Church of Baltimore on May 5, 1819.

1 Thes. v. 21: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

The peculiar circumstances of this occasion not only justify, but seem to
demand a departure from the course generally followed by preachers at the
introduction of a brother into the sacred office. It is usual to speak of
the nature, design, duties, and advantages of the Christian ministry; and
on these topics I should now be happy to insist, did I not remember that a
minister is to be given this day to a religious society, whose
peculiarities of opinion have drawn upon them much remark, and may I not
add, much reproach. Many good minds, many sincere Christians, I am aware,
are apprehensive that the solemnities of this day are to give a degree of
influence to principles which they deem false and injurious. The fears and
anxieties of such men I respect; and, believing that they are grounded in
part on mistake, I have thought it my duty to lay before you, as clearly as
I can, some of the distinguishing opinions of that class of Christians in
our country, who are known to sympathize with this religious society. I
must ask your patience, for such a subject is not to be despatched in a
narrow compass. I must also ask you to remember, that it is impossible to
exhibit, in a single discourse, our views of every doctrine of Revelation,
much less the differences of opinion which are known to subsist among
ourselves. I shall confine myself to topics, on which our sentiments have
been misrepresented, or which distinguish us most widely from others. May I
not hope to be heard with candor? God deliver us all from prejudice and
unkindness, and fill us with the love of truth and virtue.

There are two natural divisions under which my thoughts will be arranged. I
shall endeavour to unfold, 1st, The principles which we adopt in
interpreting the Scriptures. And 2dly, Some of the doctrines, which the
Scriptures, so interpreted, seem to us clearly to express.

I. We regard the Scriptures as the records of God's successive revelations
to mankind, and particularly of the last and most perfect revelation of his
will by Jesus Christ. Whatever doctrines seem to us to be clearly taught in
the Scriptures; we receive without reserve or exception. We do not,
however, attach equal importance to all the books in this collection. Our
religion, we believe, lies chiefly in the New Testament. The dispensation
of Moses, compared with that of Jesus, we consider as adapted to the
childhood of the human race, a preparation for a nobler system, and chiefly
useful now as serving to confirm and illustrate the Christian Scriptures.
Jesus Christ is the only master of Christians, and whatever he taught,
either during his personal ministry, or by his inspired Apostles, we regard
as of divine authority, and profess to make the rule of our lives.

This authority, which we give to the Scriptures, is a reason, we conceive,
for studying them with peculiar care, and for inquiring anxiously into the
principles of interpretation, by which their true meaning may be
ascertained. The principles adopted by the class of Christians in whose
name I speak, need to be explained, because they are often misunderstood.
We are particularly accused of making an unwarrantable use of reason in the
interpretation of Scripture. We are said to exalt reason above revelation,
to prefer our own wisdom to God's. Loose and undefined charges of this kind
are circulated so freely, that we think it due to ourselves, and to the
cause of truth, to express our views with some particularity.

Our leading principle in interpreting Scripture is this, that the Bible is
a book written for men, in the language of men, and that its meaning is to
be sought in the same manner as that of other books. We believe that God,
when he speaks to the human race, conforms, if we may so say, to the
established rules of speaking and writing. How else would the Scriptures
avail us more, than if communicated in an unknown tongue?

Now all books, and all conversation, require in the reader or hearer the
constant exercise of reason; or their true import is only to be obtained by
continual comparison and inference. Human language, you well know, admits
various interpretations; and every word and every sentence must be modified
and explained according to the subject which is discussed, according to the
purposes, feelings, circumstances, and principles of the writer, and
according to the genius and idioms of the language which he uses. These are
acknowledged principles in the interpretation of human writings; and a man,
whose words we should explain without reference to these principles, would
reproach us justly with a criminal want of candor, and an intention of
obscuring or distorting his meaning.

Were the Bible written in a language and style of its own, did it consist
of words, which admit but a single sense, and of sentences wholly detached
from each other, there would be no place for the principles now laid down.
We could not reason about it, as about other writings. But such a book
would be of little worth; and perhaps, of all books, the Scriptures
correspond least to this description. The Word of God hears the stamp of
the same hand, which we see in his works. It has infinite connexions and
dependences. Every proposition is linked with others, and is to be compared
with others; that its full and precise import may he understood. Nothing
stands alone. The New Testament is built on the Old. The Christian
dispensation is a continuation of the Jewish, the completion of a vast
scheme of providence, requiring great extent of view in the reader. Still
more, the Bible treats of subjects on which we receive ideas from other
sources besides itself; such subjects as the nature, passions, relations,
and duties of man; and it expects us to restrain and modify its language by
the known truths, which observation and experience furnish on these topics.

We profess not to know a book, which demands a more frequent exercise of
reason than the Bible. In addition to the remarks now made on its infinite
connexions, we may observe, that its style nowhere affects the precision of
science, or the accuracy of definition. Its language is singularly glowing,
bold, and figurative, demanding more frequent departures from the literal
sense, than that of our own age and country, and consequently demanding
more continual exercise of judgment. -- We find, too, that the different
portions of this book, instead of being confined to general truths, refer
perpetually to the times when they were written, to states of society, to
modes of thinking, to controversies in the church, to feelings and usages
which have passed away, and without the knowledge of which we are
constantly in danger of extending to all times, and places, what was of
temporary and local application. -- We find, too, that some of these books
are strongly marked by the genius and character of their respective
writers, that the Holy Spirit did not so guide the Apostles as to suspend
the peculiarities of their minds, and that a knowledge of their feelings,
and of the influences under which they were placed, is one of the
preparations for understanding their writings. With these views of the
Bible, we feel it our bounden duty to exercise our reason upon it
perpetually, to compare, to infer, to look beyond the letter to the spirit,
to seek in the nature of the subject, and the aim of the writer, his true
meaning; and, in general, to make use of what is known, for explaining what
is difficult, and for discovering new truths.

Need I descend to particulars, to prove that the Scriptures demand the
exercise of reason? Take, for example, the style in which they generally
speak of God, and observe how habitually they apply to him human passions
and organs. Recollect the declarations of Christ, that he came not to send
peace, but a sword; that unless we eat his flesh, and drink his blood, we
have no life in us; that we must hate father and mother, and pluck out the
right eye; and a vast number of passages equally bold and unlimited.
Recollect the unqualified manner in which it is said of Christians, that
they possess all things, know all things, and can do all things. Recollect
the verbal contradiction between Paul and James, and the apparent clashing
of some parts of Paul's writings with the general doctrines and end of
Christianity. I might extend the enumeration indefinitely; and who does not
see, that we must limit all these passages by the known attributes of God,
of Jesus Christ, and of human nature, and by the circumstances under which
they were written, so as to give the language a quite different import from
what it would require, had it been applied to different beings, or used in
different connexions.

Enough has been said to show, in what sense we make use of reason in
interpreting Scripture. From a variety of possible interpretations, we
select that which accords with the nature of the subject and the state of
the writer, with the connexion of the passage, with the general strain of
Scripture, with the known character and will of God, and with the obvious
and acknowledged laws of nature. In other words, we believe that God never
contradicts, in one part of scripture, what he teaches in another; and
never contradicts, in revelation, what he teaches in his works and
providence. And we therefore distrust every interpretation, which, after
deliberate attention, seems repugnant to any established truth. We reason
about the Bible precisely as civilians do about the constitution under
which we live; who, you know, are accustomed to limit one provision of that
venerable instrument by others, and to fix the precise import of its parts,
by inquiring into its general spirit, into the intentions of its authors,
and into the prevalent feelings, impressions, and circumstances of the time
when it was framed. Without these principles of interpretation, we frankly
acknowledge, that we cannot defend the divine authority of the Scriptures.
Deny us this latitude, and we must abandon this book to its enemies.

We do not announce these principles as original, or peculiar to ourselves.
All Christians occasionally adopt them, not excepting those who most
vehemently decry them, when they happen to menace some favorite article of
their creed. All Christians are compelled to use them in their
controversies with infidels. All sects employ them in their warfare with
one another. All willingly avail themselves of reason, when it can be
pressed into the service of their own party, and only complain of it, when
its weapons wound themselves. None reason more frequently than those from
whom we differ. It is astonishing what a fabric they rear from a few slight
hints about the fall of our first parents; and how ingeniously they
extract, from detached passages, mysterious doctrines about the divine
nature. We do not blame them for reasoning so abundantly, but for violating
the fundamental rules of reasoning, for sacrificing the plain to the
obscure, and the general strain of Scripture to a scanty number of
insulated texts.

We object strongly to the contemptuous manner in which human reason is
often spoken of by our adversaries, because it leads, we believe, to
universal skepticism. If reason be so dreadfully darkened by the fall, that
its most decisive judgments on religion are unworthy of trust, then
Christianity, and even natural theology, must be abandoned; for the
existence and veracity of God, and the divine original of Christianity, are
conclusions of reason, and must stand or fall with it. If revelation be at
war with this faculty, it subverts itself, for the great question of its
truth is left by God to be decided at the bar of reason. It is worthy of
remark, how nearly the bigot and the skeptic approach. Both would
annihilate our confidence in our faculties, and both throw doubt and
confusion over every truth. We honor revelation too highly to make it the
antagonist of reason, or to believe that it calls us to renounce our
highest powers.

We indeed grant, that the use of reason in religion is accompanied with
danger. But we ask any honest man to look back on the history of the
church, and say, whether the renunciation of it be not still more
dangerous. Besides, it is a plain fact, that men reason as erroneously on
all subjects, as on religion. Who does not know the wild and groundless
theories, which have been framed in physical and political science? But who
ever supposed, that we must cease to exercise reason on nature and society,
because men have erred for ages in explaining them? We grant, that the
passions continually, and sometimes fatally, disturb the rational faculty
in its inquiries into revelation. The ambitious contrive to find doctrines
in the Bible, which favor their love of dominion. The timid and dejected
discover there a gloomy system, and the mystical and fanatical, a visionary
theology. The vicious can find examples or assertions on which to build the
hope of a late repentance, or of acceptance on easy terms. The falsely
refined contrive to light on doctrines which have not been soiled by vulgar
handling. But the passions do not distract the reason in religious, any
more than in other inquiries, which excite strong and general interest; and
this faculty, of consequence, is not to be renounced in religion, unless we
are prepared to discard it universally. The true inference from the almost
endless errors, which have darkened theology, is, not that we are to
neglect and disparage our powers, but to exert them more patiently,
circumspectly, uprightly. The worst errors, after all, having sprung up in
that church, which proscribes reason, and demands from its members implicit
faith. The most pernicious doctrines have been the growth of the darkest
times, when the general credulity encouraged bad men and enthusiasts to
broach their dreams and inventions, and to stifle the faint remonstrances
of reasons, by the menaces of everlasting perdition. Say what we may, God
has given us a rational nature, and will call us to account for it. We may
let it sleep, but we do so at our peril. Revelation is addressed to us as
rational beings. We may wish, in our to sloth, that God had given us a
system, demand of comparing, limiting, and inferring. But such a system
would be at variance with the whole character of our present existence; and
it is the part of wisdom to take revelation as it is given to us, and to
interpret it by the help of the faculties, which it everywhere supposes,
and on which founded.

To the views now given, an objection is commonly urged from the character
of God. We are told, that God being infinitely wiser than men, his
discoveries will surpass human reason. In a revelation from such a teacher,
we ought to expect propositions, which we cannot reconcile with one
another, and which may seem to contradict established truths ; and it
becomes us not to question or explain them away, but to believe, and adore,
and to submit our weak and carnal reason to the Divine Word. To this
objection, we have two short answers. We say, first, that it is impossible
that a teacher of infinite wisdom should expose those, whom he would teach,
to infinite error. But if once we admit, that propositions, which in their
literal sense appear plainly repugnant to one another, or to any known
truth, are still to be literally understood and received, what possible
limit can we set to the belief of contradictions? What shelter have we from
the wildest fanaticism, which can always quote passages, that, in their
literal and obvious sense, give support to its extravagances? How can the
Protestant escape from transubstantiation, a doctrine most clearly taught
us, if the submission of reason, now contended for, be a duty? How can we
even hold fast the truth of revelation, for if one apparent contradiction
may be true, so may another, and the proposition, that Christianity is
false, though involving inconsistency, may still be a verity?

We answer again, that, if God be infinitely wise, he cannot sport with the
understandings of his creatures. A wise teacher discovers his wisdom in
adapting himself to the capacities of his pupils, not in perplexing them
with what is unintelligible, not in distressing them with apparent
contradictions, not in filling them with a skeptical distrust of their own
powers. An infinitely wise teacher, who knows the precise extent of our
minds, and the best method of enlightening them, will surpass all other
instructors in bringing down truth to our apprehension, and in showing its
loveliness and harmony. We ought, indeed, to expect occasional obscurity in
such a book as the Bible, which was written for past and future ages, as
well as for the present. But God's wisdom is a pledge, that whatever is
necessary for US, and necessary for salvation, is revealed too plainly to
be mistaken, and too consistently to be questioned, by a sound and upright
mind. It is not the mark of wisdom, to use an unintelligible phraseology,
to communicate what is above our capacities, to confuse and unsettle the
intellect by appearances of contradiction. We honor our Heavenly Teacher
too much to ascribe to him such a revelation. A revelation is a gift of
light. It cannot thicken our darkness, and multiply our perplexities.

II. Having thus stated the principles according to which we interpret
Scripture, I now proceed to the second great head of this discourse, which
is, to state some of the views which we derive from that sacred book,
particularly those which distinguish us from other Christians.

1. In the first place, we believe in the doctrine of God's UNITY, or that
there is one God, and one only. To this truth we give infinite importance,
and we feel ourselves bound to take heed, lest any man spoil us of it by
vain philosophy. The proposition, that there is one God, seems to us
exceedingly plain. We understand by it, that there is one being, one mind,
one person, one intelligent agent, and one only, to whom underived and
infinite perfection and dominion belong. We conceive, that these words
could have conveyed no other meaning to the simple and uncultivated people
who were set apart to be the depositaries of this great truth, and who were
utterly incapable of understanding those hair- breadth distinctions between
being and person, which the sagacity of later ages has discovered. We find
no intimation, that this language was to be taken in an unusual sense, or
that God's unity was a quite different thing from the oneness of other
intelligent beings.

We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that, whilst acknowledging in
words, it subverts in effect, the unity of God. According to this doctrine,
there are three infinite and equal persons, possessing supreme divinity,
called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Each of these persons, as described
by theologians, has his own particular consciousness, will, and
perceptions. They love each other, converse with each other, and delight in
each other's society. They perform different parts in man's redemption,
each having his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the
other. The Son is mediator and not the Father. The Father sends the Son,
and is not himself sent; nor is he conscious, like the Son, of taking
flesh. Here, then, we have three intelligent agents, possessed of different
consciousness, different wills, and different perceptions, performing
different acts, and sustaining different relations; and if these things do
not imply and constitute three minds or beings, we are utterly at a loss to
know how three minds or beings are to be formed. It is difference of
properties, and acts, and consciousness, which leads us to the belief of
different intelligent beings, and, if this mark fails us, our whole
knowledge fall; we have no proof, that all the agents and persons in the
universe are not one and the same mind. When we attempt to conceive of
three Gods, we can do nothing more than represent to ourselves three
agents, distinguished from each other by similar marks and peculiarities to
those which separate the persons of the Trinity; and when common Christians
hear these persons spoken of as conversing with each other, loving each
other, and performing different acts, how can they help regarding them as
different beings, different minds?

We do, then, with all earnestness, though without reproaching our brethren,
protest against the irrational and unscriptural doctrine of the Trinity.
"To us," as to the Apostle and the primitive Christians, "there is one God,
even the Father." With Jesus, we worship the Father, as the only living and
true God. We are astonished, that any man can read the New Testament, and
avoid the conviction, that the Father alone is God. We hear our Saviour
continually appropriating this character to the Father. We find the Father
continually distinguished from Jesus by this title. "God sent his Son."
"God anointed Jesus." Now, how singular and inexplicable is this
phraseology, which fills the New Testament, if this title belong equally to
Jesus, and if a principal object of this book is to reveal him as God, as
partaking equally with the Father in supreme divinity! We challenge our
opponents to adduce one passage in the New Testament, where the word God
means three persons, where it is not limited to one person, and where,
unless turned from its usual sense by the connexion, it does not mean the
Father. Can stronger proof be given, that the doctrine of three persons in
the Godhead is not a fundamental doctrine of Christianity?

This doctrine, were it true, must, from its difficulty, singularity, and
importance, have been laid down with great clearness, guarded with great
care, and stated with all possible precision. But where does this statement
appear? From the many passages which treat of God, we ask for one, one
only, in which we are told, that he is a threefold being, or that he is
three persons, or that he is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. On the contrary,
in the New Testament, where, at least, we might expect many express
assertions of this nature, God is declared to be one, without the least
attempt to prevent the acceptation of the words in their common sense; and
he is always spoken of and addressed in the singular number, that is, in
language which was universally understood to intend a single person, and to
which no other idea could have been attached, without an express
admonition. So entirely do the Scriptures abstain from stating the Trinity,
that when our opponents would insert it into their creeds and doxologies,
they are compelled to leave the Bible, and to invent forms of words
altogether unsanctioned by Scriptural phraseology. That a doctrine so
strange, so liable to misapprehension, so fundamental as this is said to
be, and requiring such careful exposition, should be left so undefined and
unprotected, to be made out by inference, and to be hunted through distant
and detached parts of Scripture, this is a difficulty, which, we think, no
ingenuity can explain.

We have another difficulty. Christianity, it must be remembered, was
planted and grew up amidst sharp-sighted enemies, who overlooked no
objectionable part of the system, and who must have fastened with great
earnestness on a doctrine involving such apparent contradictions as the
Trinity. We cannot conceive an opinion, against which the Jews, who prided
themselves on an adherence to God's unity, would have raised an equal
clamor. Now, how happens it, that in the apostolic writings, which relate
so much to objections against Christianity, and to the controversies which
grew out of this religion, not one word is said, implying that objections
were brought against the Gospel from the doctrine of the Trinity, not one
word is uttered in its defence and explanation, not a word to rescue it
from reproach and mistake? This argument has almost the force of
demonstration. We are persuaded, that had three divine persons been
announced by the first preachers of Christianity, all equal, and all
infinite, one of whom was the very Jesus who had lately died on a cross,
this peculiarity of Christianity would have almost absorbed every other,
and the great labor of the Apostles would have been to repel the continual
assaults, which it would have awakened. But the fact is, that not a whisper
of objection to Christianity, on that account, reaches our ears from the
apostolic age. In the Epistles we see not a trace of controversy called
forth by the Trinity.

We have further objections to this doctrine, drawn from its practical
influence. We regard it as unfavorable to devotion, by dividing and
distracting the mind in its communion with God. It is a great excellence of
the doctrine of God's unity, that it offers to us ONE OBJECT of supreme
homage, adoration, and love, One Infinite Father, one Being of beings, one
original and fountain, to whom we may refer all good, in whom all our
powers and affections may be concentrated, and whose lovely and venerable
nature may pervade all our thoughts. True piety, when directed to an
undivided Deity, has a chasteness, a singleness, most favorable to
religious awe and love. Now, the Trinity sets before us three distinct
objects of supreme adoration; three infinite persons, having equal claims
on our hearts; three divine agents, performing different offices, and to be
acknowledged and worshipped in different relations. And is it possible, we
ask, that the weak and limited mind of man can attach itself to these with
the same power and joy, as to One Infinite Father, the only First Cause, in
whom all the blessings of nature and redemption meet as their centre and
source? Must not devotion be distracted by the equal and rival claims of
three equal persons, and must not the worship of the conscientious,
consistent Christian, be disturbed by an apprehension, lest he withhold
from one or another of these, his due proportion of homage?

We also think, that the doctrine of the Trinity injures devotion, not only
by joining to the Father other objects of worship, but by taking from the
Father the supreme affection, which is his due, and transferring it to the
Son. This is a most important view. That Jesus Christ, if exalted into the
infinite Divinity, should be more interesting than the Father, is precisely
what might be expected from history, and from the principles of human
nature. Men want an object of worship like themselves, and the great secret
of idolatry lies in this propensity. A God, clothed in our form, and
feeling our wants and sorrows, speaks to our weak nature more strongly,
than a Father in heaven, a pure spirit, invisible and unapproachable, save
by the reflecting and purified mind. -- We think, too, that the peculiar
offices ascribed to Jesus by the popular theology, make him the most
attractive person in the Godhead. The Father is the depositary of the
justice, the vindicator of the rights, the avenger of the laws of the
Divinity. On the other hand, the Son, the brightness of the divine mercy,
stands between the incensed Deity and guilty humanity, exposes his meek
head to the storms, and his compassionate breast to the sword of the divine
justice, bears our whole load of punishment, and purchases with his blood
every blessing which descends from heaven. Need we state the effect of
these representations, especially on common minds, for whom Christianity
was chiefly designed, and whom it seeks to bring to the Father as the
loveliest being? We do believe, that the worship of a bleeding, suffering
God, tends strongly to absorb the mind and to draw it from other objects,
just as the human tenderness of the Virgin Mary has given her so
conspicuous a place in the devotions of the Church of Rome. We believe,
too, that this worship, though attractive, is not most fitted to
spiritualize the mind, that it awakens human transport, rather than that
deep veneration of the moral perfections of God, which is the essence of
piety.

2. Having thus given our views of the unity of God, I proceed in the second
place to observe, that we believe in the unity of Jesus Christ. We believe
that Jesus is one mind, one soul, one being, as truly one as we are, and
equally distinct from the one God. We complain of the doctrine of the
Trinity, that, not satisfied with making God three beings, it makes; Jesus
Christ two beings, and thus introduces infinite confusion into our
conceptions of his character. This corruption of Christianity, alike
repugnant to common sense and to the general strain of Scripture, is a
remarkable proof of the power of a false philosophy in disfiguring the
simple truth of Jesus.

According to this doctrine, Jesus Christ, instead of being one mind, one
conscious intelligent principle, whom we can understand, consists of two
souls, two minds; the one divine, the other human; the one weak, the other
almighty; the one ignorant, the other omniscient. Now we maintain, that
this is to make Christ two beings. To denominate him one person, one being,
and yet to suppose him made up of two minds, infinitely different from each
other, is to abuse and confound language, and to throw darkness over all
our conceptions of intelligent natures. According to the common doctrine,
each of these two minds in Christ has its own consciousness, its own will,
its own perceptions. They have, in fact, no common properties. The divine
mind feels none of the wants and sorrows of the human, and the human is
infinitely removed from the perfection and happiness of the divine. Can you
conceive of two beings in the universe more distinct? We have always
thought that one person was constituted and distinguished by one
consciousness. The doctrine, that one and the same person should have two
consciousness, two wills, two souls, infinitely different from each other,
this we think an enormous tax on human credulity.

We say, that if a doctrine, so strange, so difficult, so remote from all
the previous conceptions of men, be indeed a part and an essential part of
revelation, it must be taught with great distinctness, and we ask our
brethren to point to some plain, direct passage, where Christ is said to be
composed of two minds infinitely different, yet constituting one person. We
find none. Other Christians, indeed, tell us, that this doctrine is
necessary to the harmony of the Scriptures, that some texts ascribe to
Jesus Christ human, and others divine properties, and that to reconcile
these, we must suppose two minds, to which these properties may be
referred. In other words, for the purpose of reconciling certain difficult
passages, which a just criticism can in a great degree, if not wholly,
explain, we must invent an hypothesis vastly more difficult, and involving
gross absurdity. We are to find our way out of a labyrinth, by a clue which
conducts us into mazes infinitely more inextricable.

Surely, if Jesus Christ felt that he consisted of two minds, and that this
was a leading feature of his religion, his phraseology respecting himself
would have been colored by this peculiarity. The universal language of men
is framed upon the idea, that one person is one person, is one mind, and
one soul; and when the multitude heard this language from the lips of
Jesus, they must have taken it in its usual sense, and must have referred
to a single soul all which he spoke, unless expressly instructed to
interpret it differently. But where do we find this instruction? Where do
you meet, in the New Testament, the phraseology which abounds in
Trinitarian books, and which necessarily grows from the doctrine of two
natures in Jesus? Where does this divine teacher say, "This I speak as God,
and this as man; this is true only of my human mind, this only of my
divine"? Where do we find in the Epistles a trace of this strange
phraseology? Nowhere. It was not needed in that day. It was demanded by the
errors of a later age.

We believe, then, that Christ is one mind, one being, and, I add, a being
distinct from the one God. That Christ is not the one God, not the same
being with the Father, is a necessary inference from our former head, in
which we saw that the doctrine of three persons in God is a fiction. But on
so important a subject, I would add a few remarks. We wish, that those from
whom we differ, would weigh one striking fact. Jesus, in his preaching,
continually spoke of God. The word was always in his mouth. We ask, does
he, by this word, ever mean himself? We say, never. On the contrary, he
most plainly distinguishes between God and himself, and so do his
disciples. How this is to be reconciled with the idea, that the
manifestation of Christ, as God, was a primary object of Christianity, our
adversaries must determine.

If we examine the passages in which Jesus is distinguished from God, we
shall see, that they not only speak of him as another being, but seem to
labor to express his inferiority. He is continually spoken of as the Son of
God, sent of God, receiving all his powers from God, working miracles
because God was with him, judging justly because God taught him, having
claims on our belief, because he was anointed and sealed by God, and as
able of himself to do nothing. The New Testament is filled with this
language. Now we ask, what impression this language was fitted and intended
to make? Could any, who heard it, have imagined that Jesus was the very God
to whom he was so industriously declared to be inferior; the very Being by
whom he was sent, and from whom he professed to have received his message
and power? Let it here be remembered, that the human birth, and bodily
form, and humble circumstances, and mortal sufferings of Jesus, must all
have prepared men to interpret, in the most unqualified manner, the
language in which his inferiority to God was declared. Why, then, was this
language used so continually, and without limitation, if Jesus were the
Supreme Deity, and if this truth were an essential part of his religion? I
repeat it, the human condition and sufferings of Christ tended strongly to
exclude from men's minds the idea of his proper Godhead; and, of course, we
should expect to find in the New Testament perpetual care and effort to
counteract this tendency, to hold him forth as the same being with his
Father, if this doctrine were, as is pretended, the soul and centre of his
religion. We should expect to find the phraseology of Scripture cast into
the mould of this doctrine, to hear familiarly of God the Son, of our Lord
God Jesus, and to be told, that to us there is one God, even Jesus. But,
instead of this, the inferiority of Christ pervades the New Testament. It
is not only implied in the general phraseology, but repeatedly and
decidedly expressed, and unaccompanied with any admonition to prevent its
application to his whole nature. Could it, then, have been the great design
of the sacred writers to exhibit Jesus as the Supreme God?

I am aware that these remarks will be met by two or three texts, in which
Christ is called God, and by a class of passages, not very numerous, in
which divine properties are said to be ascribed to him. To these we offer
one plain answer. We say, that it is one of the most established and
obvious principles of criticism, that language is to be explained according
to the known properties of the subject to which it is applied. Every man
knows, that the same words convey very different ideas, when used in
relation to different beings. Thus, Solomon BUILT the temple in a different
manner from the architect whom he employed; and God REPENTS differently
from man. Now we maintain, that the known properties and circumstances of
Christ, his birth, sufferings, and death, his constant habit of speaking of
God as a distinct being from himself, his praying to God, his ascribing to
God all his power and offices, these acknowledged properties of Christ, we
say, oblige us to interpret the comparatively few passages which are
thought to make him the Supreme God, in a manner consistent with his
distinct and inferior nature. It is our duty to explain such texts by the
rule which we apply to other texts, in which human beings are called gods,
and are said to be partakers of the divine nature, to know and possess all
things, and to be filled with all God's fulness. These latter passages we
do not hesitate to modify, and restrain, and turn from the most obvious
sense, because this sense is opposed to the known properties of the beings
to whom they relate; and we maintain, that we adhere to the same principle,
and use no greater latitude, in explaining, as we do, the passages which
are thought to support the Godhead of Christ.

Trinitarians profess to derive some important advantages from their mode of
viewing Christ. It furnishes them,they tell us, with an infinite atonement,
for it shows them an infinite being suffering for their sins. The
confidence with which this fallacy is repeated astonishes us. When pressed
with the question, whether they really believe, that the infinite and
unchangeable God suffered and died on the cross, they acknowledge that this
is not true, but that Christ's human mind alone sustained the pains of
death. How have we, then, an infinite sufferer? This language seems to us
an imposition on common minds, and very derogatory to God's justice, as if
this attribute could be satisfied by a sophism and a fiction.

We are also told, that Christ is a more interesting object, that his love
and mercy are more felt, when he is viewed as the Supreme God, who left his
glory to take humanity and to suffer for men. That Trinitarians are
strongly moved by this representation, we do not mean to deny; but we think
their emotions altogether founded on a misapprehension of their own
doctrines. They talk of the second person of the Trinity's leaving his
glory and his Father's bosom, to visit and save the world. But this second
person, being the unchangeable and infinite God, was evidently incapable of
parting with the least degree of his perfection and felicity. At the moment
of his taking flesh, he was as intimately present with his Father as
before, and equally with his Father filled heaven, and earth, and
immensity. This Trinitarians acknowledge; and still they profess to be
touched and overwhelmed by the amazing humiliation of this immutable being!
But not only does their doctrine, when fully explained, reduce Christ's
humiliation to a fiction, it almost wholly destroys the impressions with
which his cross ought to be viewed. According to their doctrine, Christ was
comparatively no sufferer at all. It is true, his human mind suffered; but
this, they tell us, was an infinitely small part of Jesus, bearing no more
proportion to his whole nature, than a single hair of our heads to the
whole body, or than a drop to the ocean. The divine mind of Christ, that
which was most properly himself, was infinitely happy, at the very moment
of the suffering of his humanity. Whilst hanging on the cross, he was the
happiest being in the universe, as happy as the infinite Father; so that
his pains, compared with his felicity, were nothing. This Trinitarians do,
and must, acknowledge. It follows necessarily from the immutableness of the
divine nature, which they ascribe to Christ; so that their system, justly
viewed, robs his death of interest, weakens our sympathy with his
sufferings, and is, of all others, most unfavorable to a love of Christ,
founded on a sense of his sacrifices for mankind. We esteem our own views
to be vastly more affecting. It is our belief, that Christ's humiliation
was real and entire, that the whole Saviour, and not a part of him,
suffered, that his crucifixion was a scene of deep and unmixed agony. As we
stand round his cross, our minds are not distracted, nor our sensibility
weakened, by contemplating him as composed of incongruous and infinitely
differing minds, and as having a balance of infinite felicity. We recognize
in the dying Jesus but one mind. This, we think, renders his sufferings,
and his patience and love in bearing them, incomparably more impressive and
affecting than the system we oppose.

3. Having thus given our belief on two great points, namely, that there is
one God, and that Jesus Christ is a being distinct from, and inferior to,
God, I now proceed to another point, on which we lay still greater stress.
We believe in the MORAL PERFECTION OF GOD. We consider no part of theology
so important as that which treats of God's moral character; and we value
our views of Christianity chiefly as they assert his amiable and venerable
attributes.

It may be said, that, in regard to this subject, all Christians agree, that
all ascribe to the Supreme Being infinite justice, goodness, and holiness.
We reply, that it is very possible to speak of God magnificently, and to
think of him meanly; to apply to his person high-sounding epithets, and to
his government, principles which make him odious. The Heathens called
Jupiter the greatest and the best; but his history was black with cruelty
and lust. We cannot judge of men's real ideas of God by their general
language, for in all ages they have hoped to soothe the Deity by adulation.
We must inquire into their particular views of his purposes, of the
principles of his administration, and of his disposition towards his
creatures.

We conceive that Christians have generally leaned towards a very injurious
view of the Supreme Being. They have too often felt, as if he were raised,
by his greatness and sovereignty, above the principles of morality, above
those eternal laws of equity and rectitude, to which all other beings are
subjected. We believe, that in no being is the sense of right so strong, so
omnipotent, as in God. We believe that his almighty power is entirely
submitted to his perceptions of rectitude; and this is the ground of our
piety. It is not because he is our Creator merely, but because he created
us for good and holy purposes; it is not because his will is irresistible,
but because his will is the perfection of virtue, that we pay him
allegiance. We cannot bow before a being, however great and powerful, who
governs tyrannically. We respect nothing but excellence, whether on earth
or in heaven. We venerate not the loftiness of God's throne, but the equity
and goodness in which it is established.

We believe that God is infinitely good, kind, benevolent, in the proper
sense of these words; good in disposition, as well as in act; good, not to
a few, but to all; good to every individual, as well as to the general
system.

We believe, too, that God is just; but we never forget, that his justice is
the justice of a good being, dwelling in the same mind, and acting in
harmony, with perfect benevolence. By this attribute, we understand God's
infinite regard to virtue or moral worth, expressed in a moral government;
that is, in giving excellent and equitable laws, and in conferring such
rewards, and inflicting such punishments, as are best fitted to secure
their observance. God's justice has for its end the highest virtue of the
creation, and it punishes for this end alone, and thus it coincides with
benevolence; for virtue and happiness, though not the same, are inseparably
conjoined.

God's justice thus viewed, appears to us to be in perfect harmony with his
mercy. According to the prevalent systems of theology, these attributes are
so discordant and jarring, that to reconcile them is the hardest task, and
the most wonderful achievement, of infinite wisdom. To us they seem to be
intimate friends, always at peace, breathing the same spirit, and seeking
the same end. By God's mercy, we understand not a blind instinctive
compassion, which forgives without reflection, and without regard to the
interests of virtue. This, we acknowledge, would be incompatible with
justice, and also with enlightened benevolence. God's mercy, as we
understand it, desires strongly the happiness of the guilty, but only
through their penitence. It has a regard to character as truly as his
justice. It defers punishment, and suffers long, that the sinner may return
to his duty, but leaves the impenitent and unyielding, to the fearful
retribution threatened in God's Word.

To give our views of God in one word, we believe in his Parental character.
We ascribe to him, not only the name, but the dispositions and principles
of a father. We believe that he has a father's concern for his creatures, a
father's desire for their improvement, a father's equity in proportioning
his commands to their powers, a father's joy in their progress, a father's
readiness to receive the penitent, and a father's justice for the
incorrigible. We look upon this world as a place of education, in which he
is training men by prosperity and adversity, by aids and obstructions, by
conflicts of reason and passion, by motives to duty and temptations to sin,
by a various discipline suited to free and moral beings, for union with
himself, and for a sublime and ever-growing virtue in heaven.

Now, we object to the systems of religion, which prevail among us, that
they are adverse, in a greater or less degree, to these purifying,
comforting, and honorable views of God; that they take from us our Father
in heaven, and substitute for him a being, whom we cannot love if we would,
and whom we ought not to love if we could. We object, particularly on this
ground, to that system, which arrogates to itself the name of Orthodoxy,
and which is now industriously propagated through our country. This system
indeed takes various shapes, but in all it casts dishonor on the Creator.
According to its old and genuine form, it teaches, that God brings us into
life wholly depraved, so that under the innocent features of our childhood
is hidden a nature averse to all good and propense to all evil, a nature
which exposes us to God's displeasure and wrath, even before we have
acquired power to understand our duties, or to reflect upon our actions.
According to a more modern exposition, it teaches, that we came from the
hands of our Maker with such a constitution, and are placed under such
influences and circumstances, as to render certain and infallible the total
depravity of every human being, from the first moment of his moral agency;
and it also teaches, that the offence of the child, who brings into life
this ceaseless tendency to unmingled crime, exposes him to the sentence of
everlasting damnation. Now, according to the plainest principles of
morality, we maintain, that a natural constitution of the mind, unfailingly
disposing it to evil and to evil alone, would absolve it from guilt; that
to give existence under this condition would argue unspeakable cruelty; and
that to punish the sin of this unhappily constituted child with endless
ruin, would be a wrong unparalleled by the most merciless despotism.

This system also teaches, that God selects from this corrupt mass a number
to be saved, and plucks them, by a special influence, from the common ruin;
that the rest of mankind, though left without that special grace which
their conversion requires, are commanded to repent, under penalty of
aggravated woe; and that forgiveness is promised them, on terms which their
very constitution infallibly disposes them to reject, and in rejecting
which they awfully enhance the punishments of hell. These proffers of
forgiveness and exhortations of amendment, to beings born under a blighting
curse, fill our minds with a horror which we want words to express.

That this religious system does not produce all the effects on character,
which might be anticipated, we most joyfully admit. It is often, very
often, counteracted by nature, conscience, common sense, by the general
strain of Scripture, by the mild example and precepts of Christ, and by the
many positive declarations of God's universal kindness and perfect equity.
But still we think that we see its unhappy influence. It tends to
discourage the timid, to give excuses to the bad, to feed the vanity of the
fanatical, and to offer shelter to the bad feelings of the malignant. By
shocking, as it does, the fundamental principles of morality, and by
exhibiting a severe and partial Deity, it tends strongly to pervert the
moral faculty, to form a gloomy, forbidding, and servile religion, and to
lead men to substitute censoriousness, bitterness, and persecution, for a
tender and impartial charity. We think, too, that this system, which begins
with degrading human nature, may be expected to end in pride; for pride
grows out of a consciousness of high distinctions, however obtained, and no
distinction is so great as that which is made between the elected and
abandoned of God.

The false and dishonorable views of God, which have now been stated, we
feel ourselves bound to resist unceasingly. Other errors we can pass over
with comparative indifference. But we ask our opponents to leave to us a
GOD, worthy of our love and trust, in whom our moral sentiments may
delight, in whom our weaknesses and sorrows may find refuge. We cling to
the Divine perfections. We meet them everywhere in creation, we read them
in the Scriptures, we see a lovely image of them in Jesus Christ; and
gratitude, love, and veneration call on us to assert them. Reproached, as
we often are, by men, it is our consolation and happiness, that one of our
chief offences is the zeal with which we vindicate the dishonored goodness
and rectitude of God.

4. Having thus spoken of the unity of God; of the unity of Jesus, and his
inferiority to God; and of the perfections of the Divine character; I now
proceed to give our views of the mediation of Christ, and of the purposes
of his mission. With regard to the great object which Jesus came to
accomplish, there seems to be no possibility of mistake. We believe, that
he was sent by the Father to effect a moral, or spiritual deliverance of
mankind; that is, to rescue men from sin and its consequences, and to bring
them to a state of everlasting purity and happiness. We believe, too, that
he accomplishes this sublime purpose by a variety of methods; by his
instructions respecting God's unity, parental character, and moral
government, which are admirably fitted to reclaim the world from idolatry
and impiety, to the knowledge, love, and obedience of the Creator; by his
promises of pardon to the penitent, and of divine assistance to those who
labor for progress in moral excellence; by the light which he has thrown on
the path of duty; by his own spotless example, in which the loveliness and
sublimity of virtue shine forth to warm and quicken, as well as guide us to
perfection; by his threatenings against incorrigible guilt; by his glorious
discoveries of immortality; by his sufferings and death; by that signal
event, the resurrection, which powerfully bore witness to his divine
mission, and brought down to men's senses a future life; by his continual
intercession, which obtains for us spiritual aid and blessings; and by the
power with which he is invested of raising the dead, judging the world, and
conferring the everlasting rewards promised to the faithful.

We have no desire to conceal the fact, that a difference of opinion exists
among us, in regard to an interesting part of Christ's mediation; I mean,
in regard to the precise influence of his death on our forgiveness. Many
suppose, that this event contributes to our pardon, as it was a principal
means of confirming his religion, and of giving it a power over the mind;
in other words, that it procures forgiveness by leading to that repentance
and virtue, which is the great and only condition on which forgiveness is
bestowed. Many of us are dissatisfied with this explanation, and think that
the Scriptures ascribe the remission of sins to Christ's death, with an
emphasis so peculiar, that we ought to consider this event as having a
special influence in removing punishment, though the Scriptures may not
reveal the way in which it contributes to this end.

Whilst, however, we differ in explaining the connexion between Christ's
death and human forgiveness, a connexion which we all gratefully
acknowledge, we agree in rejecting many sentiments which prevail in regard
to his mediation. The idea, which is conveyed to common minds by the
popular system, that Christ's death has an influence in making God
placable, or merciful, in awakening his kindness towards men, we reject
with strong disapprobation. We are happy to find, that this very
dishonorable notion is disowned by intelligent Christians of that class
from which we differ. We recollect, however, that, not long ago, it was
common to hear of Christ, as having died to appease God's wrath, and to pay
the debt of sinners to his inflexible justice; and we have a strong
persuasion, that the language of popular religious books, and the common
mode of stating the doctrine of Christ's mediation, still communicate very
degrading views of God's character. They give to multitudes the impression,
that the death of Jesus produces a change in the mind of God towards man,
and that in this its efficacy chiefly consists. No error seems to us more
pernicious. We can endure no shade over the pure goodness of God. We
earnestly maintain, that Jesus, instead of calling forth, in any way or
degree, the mercy of the Father, was sent by that mercy, to be our Saviour;
that he is nothing to the human race, but what he is by God's appointment;
that he communicates nothing but what God empowers him to bestow; that our
Father in heaven is originally, essentially, and eternally placable, and
disposed to forgive; and that his unborrowed, underived, and unchangeable
love is the only fountain of what flows to us through his Son. We conceive,
that Jesus is dishonored, not glorified, by ascribing to him an influence,
which clouds the splendor of Divine benevolence.

We farther agree in rejecting, as unscriptural and absurd, the explanation
given by the popular system, of the manner in which Christ's death procures
forgiveness for men. This system used to teach as its fundamental
principle, that man, having sinned against an infinite Being, has
contracted infinite guilt, and is consequently exposed to an infinite
penalty. We believe, however, that this reasoning, if reasoning it may be
called, which overlooks the obvious maxim, that the guilt of a being must
be proportioned to his nature and powers, has fallen into disuse. Still the
system teaches, that sin, of whatever degree, exposes to endless
punishment, and that the whole human race, being infallibly involved by
their nature in sin, owe this awful penalty to the justice of their
Creator. It teaches, that this penalty cannot be remitted, in consistency
with the honor of the divine law, unless a substitute be found to endure it
or to suffer an equivalent. It also teaches, that, from the nature of the
case, no substitute is adequate to this work, save the infinite God
himself; and accordingly, God, in his second person, took on him human
nature, that he might pay to his own justice the debt of punishment
incurred by men, and might thus reconcile forgiveness with the claims and
threatenings of his law. Such is the prevalent system. Now, to us, this
doctrine seems to carry on its front strong marks of absurdity; and we
maintain that Christianity ought not to be encumbered with it, unless it be
laid down in the New Testament fully and expressly. We ask our adversaries,
then, to point to some plain passages where it is taught. We ask for one
text, in which we are told, that God took human nature that he might make
an infinite satisfaction to his own justice; for one text, which tells us,
that human guilt requires an infinite substitute; that Christ's sufferings
owe their efficacy to their being borne by an infinite being; or that his
divine nature gives infinite value to the sufferings of the human. Not ONE
WORD of this description can we find in the Scriptures; not a text, which
even hints at these strange doctrines. They are altogether, we believe, the
fictions of theologians. Christianity is in no degree responsible for them.
We are astonished at their prevalence. What can be plainer, than that God
cannot, in any sense, be a sufferer, or bear a penalty in the room of his
creatures? How dishonorable to him is the supposition, that his justice is
now so severe, as to exact infinite punishment for the sins of frail and
feeble men, and now so easy and yielding, as to accept the limited pains of
Christ's human soul, as a full equivalent for the endless woes due from the
world? How plain is it also, according to this doctrine, that God, instead
of being plenteous in forgiveness, never forgives; for it seems absurd to
speak of men as forgiven, when their whole punishment, or an equivalent to
it, is borne by a substitute? A scheme more fitted to obscure the
brightness of Christianity and the mercy of God, or less suited to give
comfort to a guilty and troubled mind, could not, we think, be easily
framed.

We believe, too, that this system is unfavorable to the character. It
naturally leads men to think, that Christ came to change God's mind rather
than their own; that the highest object of his mission was to avert
punishment, rather than to communicate holiness; and that a large part of
religion consists in disparaging good works and human virtue, for the
purpose of magnifying the value of Christ's vicarious sufferings. In this
way, a sense of the infinite importance and indispensable necessity of
personal improvement is weakened, and high-sounding praises of Christ's
cross seem often to be substituted for obedience to his precepts. For
ourselves, we have not so learned Jesus. Whilst we gratefully acknowledge,
that he came to rescue us from punishment, we believe, that he was sent on
a still nobler errand, namely, to deliver us from sin itself, and to form
us to a sublime and heavenly virtue. We regard him as a Saviour, chiefly as
he is the light, physician, and guide of the dark, diseased, and wandering
mind. No influence in the universe seems to us so glorious, as that over
the character; and no redemption so worthy of thankfulness, as the
restoration of the soul to purity. Without this, pardon, were it possible,
would be of little value. Why pluck the sinner from hell, if a hell be left
to burn in his own breast? Why raise him to heaven, if he remain a stranger
to its sanctity and love? With these impressions, we are accustomed to
value the Gospel chiefly as it abounds in effectual aids, motives,
excitements to a generous and divine virtue. In this virtue, as in a common
centre, we see all its doctrines, precepts, promises meet; and we believe,
that faith in this religion is of no worth, and contributes nothing to
salvation, any farther than as it uses these doctrines, precepts, promises,
and the whole life, character, sufferings, and triumphs of Jesus, as the
means of purifying the mind, of changing it into the likeness of his
celestial excellence.

5. Having thus stated our views of the highest object of Christ's mission,
that it is the recovery of men to virtue, or holiness, I shall now, in the
last place, give our views of the nature of Christian virtue, or true
holiness. We believe that all virtue has its foundation in the moral nature
of man, that is, in conscience, or his sense of duty, and in the power of
forming his temper and life according to conscience. We believe that these
moral faculties are the grounds of responsibility, and the highest
distinctions of human nature, and that no act is praiseworthy, any farther
than it springs from their exertion. We believe, that no dispositions
infused into us without our own moral activity, are of the nature of
virtue, and therefore, we reject the doctrine of irresistible divine
influence on the human mind, moulding it into goodness, as marble is hewn
into a statue. Such goodness, if this word may be used, would not be the
object of moral approbation, any more than the instinctive affections of
inferior animals, or the constitutional amiableness of human beings.

By these remarks, we do not mean to deny the importance of God's aid or
Spirit; but by his Spirit, we mean a moral, illuminating, and persuasive
influence, not physical, not compulsory, not involving a necessity of
virtue. We object, strongly, to the idea of many Christians respecting
man's impotence and God's irresistible agency on the heart, believing that
they subvert our responsibility and the laws of our moral nature, that they
make men machines, that they cast on God the blame of all evil deeds, that
they discourage good minds, and inflate the fanatical with wild conceits of
immediate and sensible inspiration.

Among the virtues, we give the first place to the love of God. We believe,
that this principle is the true end and happiness of our being, that we
were made for union with our Creator, that his infinite perfection is the
only sufficient object and true resting-place for the insatiable desires
and unlimited capacities of the human mind, and that, without him, our
noblest sentiments, admiration, veneration, hope, and love, would wither
and decay. We believe, too, that the love of God is not only essential to
happiness, but to the strength and perfection of all the virtues; that
conscience, without the sanction of God's authority and retributive
justice, would be a weak director; that benevolence, unless nourished by
communion with his goodness, and encouraged by his smile, could not thrive
amidst the selfishness and thanklessness of the world; and that
self-government, without a sense of the divine inspection, would hardly
extend beyond an outward and partial purity. God, as he is essentially
goodness, holiness, justice, and virtue, so he is the life, motive, and
sustainer of virtue in the human soul.

But, whilst we earnestly inculcate the love of God, we believe that great
care is necessary to distinguish it from counterfeits. We think that much
which is called piety is worthless. Many have fallen into the error, that
there can be no excess in feelings which have God for their object; and,
distrusting as coldness that self-possession, without which virtue and
devotion lose all their dignity, they have abandoned themselves to
extravagances, which have brought contempt on piety. Most certainly, if the
love of God be that which often bears its name, the less we have of it the
better. If religion be the shipwreck of understanding, we cannot keep too
far from it. On this subject, we always speak plainly. We cannot sacrifice
our reason to the reputation of zeal. We owe it to truth and religion to
maintain, that fanaticism, partial insanity, sudden impressions, and
ungovernable transports, are anything rather than piety.

We conceive, that the true love of God is a moral sentiment, founded on a
clear perception, and consisting in a high esteem and veneration, of his
moral perfections. Thus, it perfectly coincides, and is in fact the same
thing, with the love of virtue, rectitude, and goodness. You will easily
judge, then, what we esteem the surest and only decisive signs of piety. We
lay no stress on strong excitements. We esteem him, and him only a pious
man, who practically conforms to God's moral perfections and government;
who shows his delight in God's benevolence, by loving and serving his
neighbour; his delight in God's justice, by being resolutely upright; his
sense of God's purity, by regulating his thoughts, imagination, and
desires; and whose conversation, business, and domestic life are swayed by
a regard to God's presence and authority. In all things else men may
deceive themselves. Disordered nerves may give them strange sights, and
sounds, and impressions. Texts of Scripture may come to them as from
Heaven. Their whole souls may be moved, and their confidence in God's favor
be undoubting. But in all this there is no religion. The question is, Do
they love God's commands, in which his character is fully expressed, and
give up to these their habits and passions? Without this, ecstasy is a
mockery. One surrender of desire to God's will, is worth a thousand
transports. We do not judge of the bent of men's minds by their raptures,
any more than we judge of the natural direction of a tree during a storm.
We rather suspect loud profession, for we have observed, that deep feeling
is generally noiseless, and least seeks display.

We would not, by these remarks, be understood as wishing to exclude from
religion warmth, and even transport. We honor, and highly value, true
religious sensibility. We believe, that Christianity is intended to act
powerfully on our whole nature, on the heart as well as the understanding
and the conscience. We conceive of heaven as a state where the love of God
will be exalted into an unbounded fervor and joy; and we desire, in our
pilgrimage here, to drink into the spirit of that better world. But we
think, that religious warmth is only to be valued, when it springs
naturally from an improved character, when it comes unforced, when it is
the recompense of obedience, when it is the warmth of a mind which
understands God by being like him, and when, instead of disordering, it
exalts the understanding, invigorates conscience, gives a pleasure to
common duties, and is seen to exist in connexion with cheerfulness,
judiciousness, and a reasonable frame of mind. When we observe a fervor,
called religious, in men whose general character expresses little
refinement and elevation, and whose piety seems at war with reason, we pay
it little respect. We honor religion too much to give its sacred name to a
feverish, forced, fluctuating zeal, which has little power over the life.

Another important branch of virtue, we believe to be love to Christ. The
greatness of the work of Jesus, the spirit with which he executed it, and
the sufferings which he bore for our salvation, we feel to be strong claims
on our gratitude and veneration. We see in nature no beauty to be compared
with the loveliness of his character, nor do we find on earth a benefactor
to whom we owe an equal debt. We read his history with delight, and learn
from it the perfection of our nature. We are particularly touched by his
death, which was endured for our redemption, and by that strength of
charity which triumphed over his pains. His resurrection is the foundation
of our hope of immortality. His intercession gives us boldness to draw nigh
to the throne of grace, and we look up to heaven with new desire, when we
think, that, if we follow him here, we shall there see his benignant
countenance, and enjoy his friendship for ever.

I need not express to you our views on the subject of the benevolent
virtues. We attach such importance to these that we are sometimes
reproached with exalting them above piety. We regard the spirit of love,
charity, meekness, forgiveness, liberality, and beneficence, as the badge
and distinction of Christians, as the brightest image we can bear of God,
as the best proof of piety. On this subject, I need not, and cannot
enlarge; but there is one branch of benevolence which I ought not to pass
over in silence, because we think that we conceive of it more highly and
justly than many of our brethren. I refer to the duty of candor, charitable
judgment, especially towards those who differ in religious opinion. We
think, that in nothing have Christians so widely departed from their
religion, as in this particular. We read with astonishment and horror, the
history of the church; and sometimes when we look back on the fires of
persecution, and on the zeal of Christians, in building up walls of
separation, and in giving up one another to perdition, we feel as if we
were reading the records of an infernal, rather than a heavenly kingdom. An
enemy to every religion, if asked to describe a Christian, would, with some
show of reason, depict him as an idolater of his own distinguishing
opinions, covered with badges of party, shutting his eyes on the virtues,
and his ears on the arguments, of his opponents, arrogating all excellence
to his own sect and all saving power to his own creed, sheltering under the
name of pious zeal the love of domination, the conceit of infallibility,
and the spirit of intolerance, and trampling on men's rights under the
pretence of saving their souls.

We can hardly conceive of a plainer obligation on beings of our frail and
fallible nature, who are instructed in the duty of candid judgment, than to
abstain from condemning men of apparent conscientiousness and sincerity,
who are chargeable with no crime but that of differing from us in the
interpretation of the Scriptures, and differing, too, on topics of great
and acknowledged obscurity. We are astonished at the hardihood of those,
who, with Christ's warnings sounding in their ears, take on them the
responsibility of making creeds for his church, and cast out professors of
virtuous lives for imagined errors, for the guilt of thinking for
themselves. We know that zeal for truth is the cover for this usurpation of
Christ's prerogative; but we think that zeal for truth, as it is called, is
very suspicious, except in men, whose capacities and advantages, whose
patient deliberation, and whose improvements in humility, mildness, and
candor, give them a right to hope that their views are more just than those
of their neighbours. Much of what passes for a zeal for truth, we look upon
with little respect, for it often appears to thrive most luxuriantly where
other virtues shoot up thinly and feebly; and we have no gratitude for
those reformers, who would force upon us a doctrine which has not sweetened
their own tempers, or made them better men than their neighbours.

We are accustomed to think much of the difficulties attending religious
inquiries; difficulties springing from the slow development of our minds,
from the power of early impressions, from the state of society, from human
authority, from the general neglect of the reasoning powers, from the want
of just principles of criticism and of important helps in interpreting
Scripture, and from various other causes. We find, that on no subject have
men, and even good men, ingrafted so many strange conceits, wild theories,
and fictions of fancy, as on religion ; and remembering, as we do, that we
ourselves are sharers of the common frailty, we dare not assume
infallibility in the treatment of our fellow-Christians, or encourage in
common Christians, who have little time for investigation, the habit of
denouncing and condemning other denominations, perhaps more enlightened and
virtuous than their own. Charity, forbearance, a delight in the virtues of
different sects, a backwardness to censure and condemn, these are virtues,
which, however poorly practised by us, we admire and recommend; and we
would rather join ourselves to the church in which they abound, than to any
other communion, however elated with the belief of its own orthodoxy,
however strict in guarding its creed, however burning with zeal against
imagined error.

I have thus given the distinguishing views of those Christians in whose
names I have spoken. We have embraced this system, not hastily or lightly,
but after much deliberation; and we hold it fast, not merely because we
believe it to be true, but because we regard it as purifying truth, as a
doctrine according to godliness, as able to "work mightily" and to "bring
forth fruit" in them who believe. That we wish to spread it, we have no
desire to conceal; but we think, that we wish its diffusion, because we
regard it as more friendly to practical piety and pure morals than the
opposite doctrines, because it gives clearer and nobler views of duty, and
stronger motives to its performance, because it recommends religion at once
to the understanding and the heart, because it asserts the lovely and
venerable attributes of God, because it tends to restore the benevolent
spirit of Jesus to his divided and afflicted church, and because it cuts
off every hope of God's favor, except that which springs from practical
conformity to the life and precepts of Christ. We see nothing in our views
to give offence, save their purity, and it is their purity, which makes us
seek and hope their extension through the world.

My friend and brother; -- You are this day to take upon you important
duties; to be clothed with an office, which the Son of God did not disdain;
to devote yourself to that religion, which the most hallowed lips have
preached, and the most precious blood sealed. We trust that you will bring
to this work a willing mind, a firm purpose, a martyr's spirit, a readiness
to toil and suffer for the truth, a devotion of your best powers to the
interests of piety and virtue. I have spoken of the doctrines which you
will probably preach; but I do not mean, that you are to give yourself to
controversy. You will remember, that good practice is the end of preaching,
and will labor to make your people holy livers, rather than skilful
disputants. Be careful, lest the desire of defending what you deem truth,
and of repelling reproach and misrepresentation, turn you aside from your
great business, which is to fix in men's minds a living conviction of the
obligation, sublimity, and happiness of Christian virtue. The best way to
vindicate your sentiments, is to show, in your preaching and life, their
intimate connexion with Christian morals, with a high and delicate sense of
duty, with candor towards your opposers, with inflexible integrity, and
with an habitual reverence for God. If any light can pierce and scatter the
clouds of prejudice, it is that of a pure example. My brother, may your
life preach more loudly than your lips. Be to this people a pattern of all
good works, and may your instructions derive authority from a well-grounded
belief in your hearers, that you speak from the heart, that you preach from
experience, that the truth which you dispense has wrought powerfully in
your own heart, that God, and Jesus, and heaven, are not merely words on
your lips, but most affecting realities to your mind, and springs of hope
and consolation, and strength, in all your trials. Thus laboring, may you
reap abundantly, and have a testimony of your faithfulness, not only in
your own conscience, but in the esteem, love, virtues, and improvements of
your people.

To all who hear me, I would say, with the Apostle, Prove all things, hold
fast that which is good. Do not, brethren, shrink from the duty of
searching God's Word for yourselves, through fear of human censure and
denunciation. Do not think, that you may innocently follow the opinions
which prevail around you, without investigation, on the ground, that
Christianity is now so purified from errors, as to need no laborious
research. There is much reason to believe, that Christianity is at this
moment dishonored by gross and cherished corruptions. If you remember the
darkness which hung over the Gospel for ages; if you consider the impure
union, which still subsists in almost every Christian country, between the
church and state, and which enlists men's selfishness and ambition on the
side of established error; if you recollect in what degree the spirit of
intolerance has checked free inquiry, not only before, but since the
Reformation; you will see that Christianity cannot have freed itself from
all the human inventions, which disfigured it under the Papal tyranny. No.
Much stubble is yet to be burned; much rubbish to be removed; many gaudy
decorations, which a false taste has hung around Christianity, must be
swept away; and the earth-born fogs, which have long shrouded it, must be
scattered, before this divine fabric will rise before us in its native and
awful majesty, in its harmonious proportions, in its mild and celestial
splendors This glorious reformation in the church, we hope, under God's
blessing, from the progress of the human intellect, from the moral progress
of society, from the consequent decline of prejudice and bigotry, and,
though last not least, from the subversion of human authority in matters of
religion, from the fall of those hierarchies, and other human institutions,
by which the minds of individuals are oppressed under the weight of
numbers, and a Papal dominion is perpetuated in the Protestant church. Our
earnest prayer to God is, that he will overturn, and overturn, and overturn
the strong-holds of spiritual usurpation, until HE shall come, whose right
it is to rule the minds of men; that the conspiracy of ages against the
liberty of Christians may be brought to an end; that the servile assent, so
long yielded to human creeds, may give place to honest and devout inquiry
into the Scriptures; and that Christianity, thus purified from error, may
put forth its almighty energy, and prove itself, by its ennobling influence
on the mind, to be indeed "the power of God unto salvation."